Democrats have locked up the black vote for generations not because they’ve solved any problems in the black community – those they’ve attempted to address have done nothing but get worse – but because they’ve cynically, and diabolically injected race into every issue and labeled with “otherness,” anyone who strays from the orthodoxy they’ve deemed “acceptable thought” for black Americans.

The liberal/progressive PC police for African-American thought are ruthless indeed. So this is Obama-led, post-racial America?

There's an obvious parallel to the viciousness that infects wartime conversation about the enemy. Why do we denigrate our enemies as Huns or gooks? To make it easier to shoot them, of course. Why do Democrats denigrate their opponents as cold-hearted racists? To make it easier to vote to rob them, of course.

Hunter is delusional, thinking black adherence to Democratic politics is the result of an argument. That's silly. The explanation for black enthusiasm for Democratic politics is extremely simple and practical: for the last 75 years Democrats have been promising to take money from the (mostly) white folks in the middle and upper income ranges and give it to them. Their votes have been bought, pure and simple, with cold cash -- lots of it.

Why is it then any kind of mystery why blacks vote for Democrats? If Democrats promised me all kinds of goodies at someone else's expense, I might vote for them, too.

The racist rhetoric Democrats emit has an entirely different purpose. Blacks, like any other color human being, have a conscience, a soul, a heart. If you are going to steal from someone else and give to him, a black man, just like a white man, needs to rationalize accepting the stolen goods. Democratic rhetoric is for just that purpose -- it is giving the recipients of its Robin Hood behaviour a narrative that contains strong reasons for accepting someone else's wealth.

…/… Every time I read a column in which a leftist laments the racism he constantly finds among conservative groups, I wonder if he has ever heard about Tim Scott.

Given that for awhile, the legislator from South Carolina was the only member of the United States Senate who is African-American, one would think that his name might be — almost — as renowned as Barack Obama's.

The explanation for Scott's relative obscurity is that he is a Republican — one who is backed by Tea Partiers and one from a Southern state to boot.

And were Scott better known, it would be far more difficult for leftists to bewail the racism of Republicans and Tea Partiers, not to mention Southerners. …/…

Whether Sterling is or isn't a Republican is of no importance to me. I'Ve never been a registered Republican, so I feel no impulse to defend Team Red,

The question is purely misdirection from the issues revolving around the NAADCP's LA, chapter. Their leadership is corrupt and took donations from a well known bigot in exchange for plaques and awards dinners. That's what they hope people will gloss over in the debate over which party Sterling registered with.

Funny how we don't know how long ago Sterling registered. At least 10 years, I've seen.

What if he registered when he was 21, doesn't that make just a soupcon of difference?

Point is, the Lefties knew for years he voted dry and drank wet, but looked the other way (as noted by Lew Alcindor and a very few others in the African community) because he gave Brazilians to the Democrat Party.

Rush read from a Mother Jones article that included a copy of Sterling's Republican party registration from 1998 (1 believe). True? I dunno. Did he switch parties since? I dunno. Is Mother Jones a reliable Source for anything that matters?

It isn't just white liberals keeping blacks in the Democratic fold, it is also the sorry black "leadership" which has been composed of people doing very well for themselves off the current arrangement: preachers, including phony ones like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, elected black Democrats, and the boards of various "civil rights" organizations.

They profit mightily by keeping their people in line and voting "properly," and if they have to use character assassination to do it, they are happy to do so.

Hunter is delusional, thinking black adherence to Democratic politics is the result of an argument. That's silly. The explanation for black enthusiasm for Democratic politics is extremely simple and practical: for the last 75 years Democrats have been promising to take money from the (mostly) white folks in the middle and upper income ranges and give it to them. Their votes have been bought, pure and simple, with cold cash -- lots of it.

Why is it then any kind of mystery why blacks vote for Democrats? If Democrats promised me all kinds of goodies at someone else's expense, I might vote for them, too.

The racist rhetoric Democrats emit has an entirely different purpose. Blacks, like any other color human being, have a conscience, a soul, a heart. If you are going to steal from someone else and give to him, a black man, just like a white man, needs to rationalize accepting the stolen goods. Democratic rhetoric is for just that purpose -- it is giving the recipients of its Robin Hood behaviour a narrative that contains strong reasons for accepting someone else's wealth.

There's an obvious parallel to the viciousness that infects wartime conversation about the enemy. Why do we denigrate our enemies as Huns or gooks? To make it easier to shoot them, of course. Why do Democrats denigrate their opponents as cold-hearted racists? To make it easier to vote to rob them, of course.

The linked article indicates that Sterling is a registered Republican. Is that true? The narrative from the conservative side is that he was a Democrat based on contributions.

Which is true? This is actually somewhat important because if conservatives are going to base an argument on a purported fact, that fact had better be right. 1 mistake by conservatives is equal to 1000 by liberals.

So if the MSM is now working overtime to brand Sterling a Republican, it's very likely because conservatives tried initially to brand him a Democrat. And to the average barely-paying-attention person out there, voter registration trumps campaign contributions. So if the voter registration angle is true, then this is a pretty stupid tactical blunder by conservatives.

How many republicans have recieved a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????derp

In this case, the "he's a repub" line came from a Dem "consultant". Folks looked into it and tweeted back that he contributed exclusively to democrats. Of course, if you'd been paying attention you'd know this.

More to the point, do you really think that Dems weren't going to do anything and were goaded into it by conservatives?

You may well be right in your conclusion that this is a tactical blunder, but your assertion that "if the MSM is now working overtime to brand Sterling a Republican, it's very likely because conservatives tried initially to brand him a Democrat" is ludicrous. They were going to do that anyway.

Maybe ... maybe not. It depends on the circumstances. If there was any Democrat taint to Sterling -- and I suspect there is, based on early MSM coverage which was silent on the issue -- then they would most likely have made hay of the racism angle but left the party affiliation alone.

By forcing the party affiliation angle, the MSM thus responds, and it's not a hard sell since in today's culture "rich white guy = Republican" is the operative formula, even if it's mostly no longer true.

It's a tactical blunder because if the voter registration was known ahead of time, then the conservative media should have let that sleeping dog lie.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.